Is there reason to believe that our brains have evolved to make efficient decisions so that the details of the internal process are irrelevant? I develop a model which illustrates a limitation of adaptive processes: improvements tend to come in the form of kludges. A kludge is a marginal adaptation that compensates for, but does not eliminate, fundamental design inefficiencies. When kludges accumulate, the result can be perpetually suboptimal behavior even in a model of evolution in which arbitrarily large innovations occur infinitely, often with probability 1. (JEL D03, D87)
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Arthur J. Robson, 2001. "Why Would Nature Give Individuals Utility Functions?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(4), pages 900-929, August.
- Sandholm, William H. & Pauzner, Ady, 1998. "Evolution, Population Growth, and History Dependence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 84-120, January.
- Larry Samuelson & Jeroen Swinkels, 2010.
"Information, evolution and utility,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
506439000000000472, David K. Levine.
- Anonymous, 2006. "Editorial Information," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 37(01), March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cla:najeco:122247000000002045. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (David K. Levine)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.